Why don't we admit the fault of victims?

[Quintessence]

I just want to pitch in that nobody here is rejecting rape myths (i.e. wearing sexy clothes increases your risk of rape) because they're "icky" or "taboo".

They probably should reject the lies, but again, the purpose of this thread really isn't to discuss rape, specifically. I don't really have anything more to say about that which I didn't already state here or in that thread.

Why would you assume we don't know what risk analysis is? I used to do it for a living.

If you did it for a living, I would assume you know that the risk analysis process is hardly common knowledge, so I'm not sure why you're asking this question, given I wasn't personally addressing you. I'd no sooner assume people around here know plant systematics. XD

So I think pointing to the thread about rape and talking about a worrying tendency to absolve victims, very much misses the mark about what that thread was about.

That's a fair criticism. The reason why I referenced that thread is because I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and that thread was my inspiration. I now wish I had not made this thread when I did, but waited like, two weeks to post it or something so it wouldn't be getting entangled with that other one. Oh well. Hindsight. Also, shouldn't have titled the thread what I did because now I have to put up with bull $#@% like this (again, hindsight):

Now since you seem to be in denial, I will let you be.

Good, because your perceptions are erroneous and your words are, frankly, slanderous. Try working on actually listening to what people say next time instead of thinking you have super mind reading powers.

 

[McBell]

Good, because your perceptions are erroneous and your words are, frankly, slanderous. Try working on actually listening to what people say next time instead of thinking you have super mind reading powers.

I did listen to what you said.

If what you said is not what you meant, then perhaps you should reword what you say?

So far, all I have seen you do is blame the victim and deny blaming the victim.

 

[savagewind]

I'd like to put this on my reading list for later.

A person who makes himself or herself look weak and vunerable when he or she is able to show real confidence but just won't because of tradition or because he is just plain lazy is sharing a little bit in the cause of the crime.

I think he* is saying that if we recognize that people are able to make themsleves targets of crime then teaching them to repel the criminal element is something to do.

If we say no one IS a target of crime then nothing can be done if there is nothing a person is able to change. You can't change the criminal. But you can change the person with a victim personality.

One thing a person can do is walk confidently. Most criminals are stupid. Is this not right? Make yourself look bigger and badder than they are.

*

 

[Revoltingest]

I did listen to what you said.
If what you said is not what you meant, then perhaps you should reword what you say?
So far, all I have seen you do is blame the victim and deny blaming the victim.

Ugh....I just read thru the whole thread. (Won't do that again.)
You're wrong.
Likely, you're obsessing over his unfortunate title, & thereafter missing the actual
content of his many posts about the importance of taking personal responsibility
to minimize one's risk of becoming a victim, ie, being reasonably careful. This has
befallen many. Look how many posts it took for me to get Mystic to acknowledge
that risk management is worthwhile. (But she's smarter than most.)

This thread needs to die.
Yeah, I'm blaming the thread.
It should be more careful next time.
Hey, Quint....next time you make a thread, run the title past me first.
I'll vet it...no charge. (We won't get so many cat toys thrown at us.)

 

[Quintessence]

I did listen to what you said.

If what you said is not what you meant, then perhaps you should reword what you say?

I sure don't get the impression you've been listening, considering I have repeatedly, to the point of nausea, stated that my suggestion is that we impartially consider all factors that play into a situation and not selectively ignore the role of crime targets (or any other factor that contributes, really). That's not remotely the same thing as suggesting "let's blame the victim!" It means we objectively investigate what's going on and recognize contributing factors as evidence arises to support their influence, no matter what those factors are. We don't ignore data because it isn't nice, sensitive, or politically correct; you also don't skew data or avoid making inquires because we want to hold to a prejudice or bigotry. If contributing factors have to do with a target's behavior, you say so. If others have to do with culture and environment, you say so. If others still have to do with the behavior of the perpetrator, you say so. You go with what the actual evidence tells you instead of going "la la la... I'm going to pretend this and that and the other thing had nothing to do with it because I feel sorry for that person and will look like a jerk to say they made a few mistakes" or the potentially even worse nonsense of "I arbitrarily feel like that person was raped because of what they wore even though I have no empirical evidence to back this whatsoever." Bad, bad, gods awful science and investigation. Unethical investigation. Not acceptable to me.

 

[Quintessence]

Hey, Quint....next time you make a thread, run the title past me first. I'll vet it...no charge. (We won't get so many cat toys thrown at us.)

LULZ.

I just didn't spend that much time thinking about it, honestly, compared to the content of the OP. I went "oh, I should make it catchy" and "oh, I don't want to make it sound obtuse and long-winded" and BAM. Clearly I should've spent the same amount of time refining the title of this thread as I have for my published manuscripts and combined it with some peer review. XD

The thread should be more careful next time. If nothing else, it reminds me of why I tend to stick to discussion topics and things that are relatively uncontroversial. What's the saying? If you don't like the heat of the desert, don't take a vacation to the Sahara?

 

[Revoltingest]

On victimhood & responsibility....
I have some business associates who also have had employees embezzle money. There's no question that we are not to blame for someone else's predation & dishonesty. Nonetheless we did "post mortems" (death of the money) in order to fully understand what happened, & figure out how to prevent it from happening again. We each altered some procedures & developed audit techniques to reduce the risk. We were not to blame, but we assume responsibility for how we deal with what happened & what will happen. I hope that many people reduce risk to never become victims at all.

Of course, it's much easier to be dispassionate over the mere loss of a few thousand dollars.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just didn't spend that much time thinking about it, honestly, compared to the content of the OP. I went "oh, I should make it catchy" and "oh, I don't want to make it sound obtuse and long-winded" and BAM.

I didn't think it possible for me to ever lose it, but you
have wrested the title of "King Of Klewless" from me.

But watch your back....I will be creating threads too!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Fwiw Quint, I respect your decision for making the title provocative. It sparked a fire of debate that helped to create useful language for people to meet in the middle. In my opinion, that's a success.

And...one more Mystic Uppity opinion. If you don't get any haters along the way, you aren't doing it right.

 

[McBell]

Ugh....I just read thru the whole thread. (Won't do that again.)
You're wrong.
Likely, you're obsessing over his unfortunate title, & thereafter missing the actual
content of his many posts about the importance of taking personal responsibility
to minimize one's risk of becoming a victim, ie, being reasonably careful. This has
befallen many. Look how many posts it took for me to get Mystic to acknowledge
that risk management is worthwhile. (But she's smarter than most.)

This thread needs to die.
Yeah, I'm blaming the thread.
It should be more careful next time.
Hey, Quint....next time you make a thread, run the title past me first.
I'll vet it...no charge. (We won't get so many cat toys thrown at us.)

I am not, like he has wrongfully suggested, ignoring the fact that there are things that can be done to help prevent rape.

I am not, however, going to accept his blaming the victim.

It is not the victims fault they got raped even if they are naked walking down the worst street in the neighbor hood while drunk off their ***.

Does such a scenario make it more likely for the victim to be raped?
Yes it does.
Is it a good idea to put oneself in such a scenario?
No it is not.

However, it is still not the victims fault.

 

[McBell]

I sure don't get the impression you've been listening,

Join the club...

considering I have repeatedly, to the point of nausea, stated that my suggestion is that we impartially consider all factors that play into a situation and not selectively ignore the role of crime targets (or any other factor that contributes, really). That's not remotely the same thing as suggesting "let's blame the victim!"

I disagree.

It means we objectively investigate what's going on and recognize contributing factors as evidence arises to support their influence, no matter what those factors are.

Agreed.

We don't ignore data because it isn't nice, sensitive, or politically correct; you also don't skew data or avoid making inquires because we want to hold to a prejudice or bigotry.

And yet you claim you are not blaming the victim...?

If contributing factors have to do with a target's behavior, you say so. If others have to do with culture and environment, you say so. If others still have to do with the behavior of the perpetrator, you say so.

Again, agreed.

You go with what the actual evidence tells you instead of going "la la la... I'm going to pretend this and that and the other thing had nothing to do with it because I feel sorry for that person and will look like a jerk to say they made a few mistakes" or the potentially even worse nonsense of "I arbitrarily feel like that person was raped because of what they wore even though I have no empirical evidence to back this whatsoever."

Is this what you are claiming I am doing?
seriously?

 

[Alceste]

I'd like to put this on my reading list for later.

A person who makes himself or herself look weak and vunerable when he or she is able to show real confidence but just won't because of tradition or because he is just plain lazy is sharing a little bit in the cause of the crime.

I think he* is saying that if we recognize that people are able to make themsleves targets of crime then teaching them to repel the criminal element is something to do.

If we say no one IS a target of crime then nothing can be done if there is nothing a person is able to change. You can't change the criminal. But you can change the person with a victim personality.

One thing a person can do is walk confidently. Most criminals are stupid. Is this not right? Make yourself look bigger and badder than they are.

*

Yup, great advice. Violent offenders look for physical awkwardness in their victims. They generally pass by anyone who looks like they might fight back and cause the criminal to lose control of the situation.

 

[Alceste]

I sure don't get the impression you've been listening, considering I have repeatedly, to the point of nausea, stated that my suggestion is that we impartially consider all factors that play into a situation and not selectively ignore the role of crime targets (or any other factor that contributes, really). That's not remotely the same thing as suggesting "let's blame the victim!" It means we objectively investigate what's going on and recognize contributing factors as evidence arises to support their influence, no matter what those factors are. We don't ignore data because it isn't nice, sensitive, or politically correct; you also don't skew data or avoid making inquires because we want to hold to a prejudice or bigotry. If contributing factors have to do with a target's behavior, you say so. If others have to do with culture and environment, you say so. If others still have to do with the behavior of the perpetrator, you say so. You go with what the actual evidence tells you instead of going "la la la... I'm going to pretend this and that and the other thing had nothing to do with it because I feel sorry for that person and will look like a jerk to say they made a few mistakes" or the potentially even worse nonsense of "I arbitrarily feel like that person was raped because of what they wore even though I have no empirical evidence to back this whatsoever." Bad, bad, gods awful science and investigation. Unethical investigation. Not acceptable to me.

Once again, nobody is going "la la la" here. The majority of the folks you're debating against have brought up a multitude of contributing factors and provided supporting evidence.

Starting with the psychology of the offender, we've brought qualities that they are typically seeking to the table, like submissiveness, and recommended not broadcasting that particular quality. We've also discussed correlations like socio-economic status, which contributes to violent crime statistics.

Heather has started a whole new thread for discussing effective assault prevention strategies.

Are you sure you actually disagree with us on something? Because I'm not at all sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not, like he has wrongfully suggested, ignoring the fact that there are things that can be done to help prevent rape.

I don't make that accusation of you.

I am not, however, going to accept his blaming the victim.

You shouldn't accept it....if he ever does do that.

It is not the victims fault they got raped even if they are naked walking down the worst street in the neighbor hood while drunk off their ***.

But to advise people against doing that is useful, & should not be called "blaming the victim", as has been so often done in these heated threads, even by those who later acknowledged the benefits of risk management. But your example is so extreme, that this victim could be called extraordinarily irresponsible. It even sounds like you're making a case that the victim is at fault here, which is counter productive.

Does such a scenario make it more likely for the victim to be raped?
Yes it does.
Is it a good idea to put oneself in such a scenario?
No it is not.
However, it is still not the victims fault.

That's a reasonable perspective. But again, the case you present threatens to muddy the waters to the point of creating fault. Criminy, why not have the victim also be wearing a Klan hood & shouting I hate moon crickets? These threads have had a plethora of loaded questions about absurdly extreme cases. Such posturing leads to extracting disagreement from issues where there is fundamentally agreement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And this thread suggests that there isn't enough focus on the fault of the victim? We need more of it? We need to put more attention on what the victim did wrong or how she or he contributed to being raped? That there's a "worrying tendency" to absolve the targets of crime?

I think this is all very misguided.

I see very little, if any, evidence that this thread is at all suggesting this. I think repeated attempts to paint risk mitigation and pragmatism as victim-blaming is very misguided.

 

[Magic Man]

I haven't read the whole thread, so it's possible or probable my comments will be a bit redundant, but nevertheless:

I think people hesitate to acknowledge any fault in victims of crimes like rape and murder, especially rape, because there is a general tendency in our society to take rape lightly or dismiss rape when it's not of the blatant "one stranger physically overpowering another stranger in a violent episode" type. We also still have a fair amount of victim-blaming. So, it's often the case that when someone brings up the victim's fault in the situation, it's in order to mitigate the actions of the offender.

So, sure, walking home at night from the club in a revealing outfit puts you at higher risk of rape and maybe should be avoided. But it's much more important to focus on the fact that no matter what you do, rape is never at all justified in any way.

 

[Alceste]

I haven't read the whole thread, so it's possible or probable my comments will be a bit redundant, but nevertheless:

I think people hesitate to acknowledge any fault in victims of crimes like rape and murder, especially rape, because there is a general tendency in our society to take rape lightly or dismiss rape when it's not of the blatant "one stranger physically overpowering another stranger in a violent episode" type. We also still have a fair amount of victim-blaming. So, it's often the case that when someone brings up the victim's fault in the situation, it's in order to mitigate the actions of the offender.

So, sure, walking home at night from the club in a revealing outfit puts you at higher risk of rape and maybe should be avoided. But it's much more important to focus on the fact that no matter what you do, rape is never at all justified in any way.

Actually, the only evidence thus far provided suggests a revealing outfit REDUCES your risk of being sexually assaulted, since rapists are specifically looking for signs of submissiveness / meekness, which typically coincide with less revealing clothing.

We're not dismissing risk mitigation, we're dispelling rape myths, such as the common but unfounded belief that wearing sexy clothes is a risk factor. We're advocating EFFECTIVE risk mitigation, which in a big part involves being aware of what is or is not a "rape myth."

 

[Penumbra]

I see very little, if any, evidence that this thread is at all suggesting this. I think repeated attempts to paint risk mitigation and pragmatism as victim-blaming is very misguided.

What do you mean? I directly quoted the OP with my post you're responding to, where it was called a "worrying tendency". And the big point of my post was that victim-blaming is a separate thing from risk mitigation, rather than painting risk mitigation as victim-blaming.

From the OP, which my post was mostly in response to:

"Why don't we admit the fault of victims?"

"In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event."

"Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation."

But does that worrying tendency even exist? I suggest it does not.

Is there indeed a reason to focus more publicly on what victims were doing when attacked by a criminal, or do we need a lot more focus on the criminal? And should we use words like how a behavior contributed to being assaulted or raped? Like it was a team effort? My post highlighted examples of victim-blaming being used in the courtroom. Victim-blaming as a way to criticize the victim after the event, and victim-blaming as a way to excuse the criminal of some of the consequences, are different than risk mitigation ahead of time. So my point is that no, I don't think we need more focus on the victim or what she or he was doing. We need a safer, less accusatory environment for victims and a harsher environment for the criminals that caused it.

That's very different from taking risk mitigation steps ahead of time, and teaching one's kids and other loved ones how to do that. That's the point of my post, that "victim-blaming" as the term is generally used is a real societal problem, especially around rape more than other crimes, and it's a very distinct thing from actual risk mitigation.

Examples of victim blaming:
-She (14 year old girl that later killed herself) lured him (47 year old man) into sex, so this isn't really statutory rape.
-She was asking for it because she was dressed like that. What did she expect?
-It's like a tiger, if you taunt it a certain way, you're going to get bit.
-She let him pay for so many drinks and then said "no" for sex after she went home with him, so this was as much her fault as his.
-She has had a lot of sex partners, so even though she said "no" and "stop", this isn't really rape.

Examples of practical risk mitigation:
-Teaching older kids to avoid getting excessively drunk, or drinking too much in any place, especially in any environment that isn't totally safe.
-Teaching older kids to look for warning signs of someone that's a problem.
-Teaching younger kids what a bad touch is, or what they should tell their parents about.
-Suggesting to a friend not to go to a certain party that night, or that a guy seems like a creep and she probably shouldn't go home with him.
-Drilling into older kids' heads the importance of consent. That consent should never be ambiguous or expected. That consent can be changed or taken away at any time for any reason. That a person has to always take responsibility for making sure they have consent before initiating. A lot of parents barely have any conversation with their kids about sex, let alone making sure their child never commits an assault of any kind.

Nobody in that rape thread disagreed with doing things like in that bottom list, and instead were against the sort of things in that top list. The type of stuff in that top list is a societal problem.

So really, is there a worrying tendency in that thread to not focus enough on what victims were doing? No, imo.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you mean? I directly quoted the OP with my post you're responding to, where it was called a "worrying tendency". And the big point of my post was that victim-blaming is a separate thing from risk mitigation, rather than painting risk mitigation as victim-blaming.

From the OP, which my post was mostly in response to:

"Why don't we admit the fault of victims?"

"In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event."

"Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation."

But does that worrying tendency even exist? I suggest it does not.

Is there indeed a reason to focus more publicly on what victims were doing when attacked by a criminal, or do we need a lot more focus on the criminal? And should we use words like how a behavior contributed to being assaulted or raped? Like it was a team effort? My post highlighted examples of victim-blaming being used in the courtroom. Victim-blaming as a way to criticize the victim after the event, and victim-blaming as a way to excuse the criminal of some of the consequences, are different than risk mitigation ahead of time. So my point is that no, I don't think we need more focus on the victim or what she or he was doing. We need a safer, less accusatory environment for victims and a harsher environment for the criminals that caused it.

That's very different from taking risk mitigation steps ahead of time, and teaching one's kids and other loved ones how to do that. That's the point of my post, that "victim-blaming" as the term is generally used is a real societal problem, especially around rape more than other crimes, and it's a very distinct thing from actual risk mitigation.

Examples of victim blaming:
-She (14 year old girl that later killed herself) lured him (47 year old man) into sex, so this isn't really statutory rape.
-She was asking for it because she was dressed like that. What did she expect?
-It's like a tiger, if you taunt it a certain way, you're going to get bit.
-She let him pay for so many drinks and then said "no" for sex after she went home with him, so this was as much her fault as his.
-She has had a lot of sex partners, so even though she said "no" and "stop", this isn't really rape.

Examples of practical risk mitigation:
-Teaching older kids to avoid getting excessively drunk, or drinking too much in any place, especially in any environment that isn't totally safe.
-Teaching older kids to look for warning signs of someone that's a problem.
-Teaching younger kids what a bad touch is, or what they should tell their parents about.
-Suggesting to a friend not to go to a certain party that night, or that a guy seems like a creep and she probably shouldn't go home with him.
-Drilling into older kids' heads the importance of consent. That consent should never be ambiguous or expected. That consent can be changed or taken away at any time for any reason. That a person has to always take responsibility for making sure they have consent before initiating. A lot of parents barely have any conversation with their kids about sex, let alone making sure their child never commits an assault of any kind.

Nobody in that rape thread disagreed with doing things like in that bottom list, and instead were against the sort of things in that top list. The type of stuff in that top list is a societal problem.

So really, is there a worrying tendency in that thread to not focus enough on what victims were doing? No, imo.

I'm just not sure what any of this has to do with the post of mine you quoted.

 

[m.ramdeen]

Your world view is completely flawed.

"Joe is walking to the store and a drunk driver just happened to loose control and ran over Joe"
The only relevant factor is that the drunk driver should not have been drinking and driving.

Trying to reason Joe as being part of the situation is not relevant.
Joe does not have superpowers and can determine when it the best to walk to the store, to avoid all dangerous situations.

People do blame themselves needlessly, for example, Mary might have wanted a candy bar and asked Joe to go to the store for her.
Mary then beats herself up for Joe getting hit by a drunk driver.
It is not Mary's fault.
Joe has walked to the store many many times before.
What we do in our natural lives has no reflect what so ever.

There is no such thing as a safe bubble one can live in and prevent themselves from all negative situations.

You are also talking in circles with the school thing.
You are placing blame on the victims but are trying to cover it up with inconsistencies.

"reducing the risk of being shot by homeschooling"
Is placing blame.

So what if the parent does in fact, home school?
And a robber just happens to pick that house, and kill everyone in the house including the kids.
Kids that wouldn't have even been there if they were in school.

Please don't try to defend this by saying the risks are less, that a robber would show up.
There are more people killed by robbers, then kids killed by other kids in school shootings.

After I read this, I'm like... WOW! :bow:
Lock thread :yes: